Browse / Scripture Commentary / Comment
LNE

LNE

2013-02-13

Sorry I’ve been gone so long.

I don’t know exactly how to understand the idea that Paul considered it a logical necessity for a woman to cut her hair if she didn’t wear a covering, unless he was trying to get women to understand that by having long hair, they were still wearing a head covering– just the natural one given by God. So, therefore, in order to truly uncover their heads they must also cut their long hair. I don’t see why Paul would be telling women to cut their hair as to not send mixed messages, but maybe that is what Paul is saying. I really just don’t know/don’t get it at the moment.

Regardless, I still think you are right. I’m convinced you are right in general on this because; (i) of the flow of the passage, especially the “if’s” used of a woman either covering or uncovering her head, (ii) Paul states that woman is man’s glory and because of this she should have authority over her head (also because of the angels), (iii) Paul tells the Corinthians to judge for themselves whether it is right for a woman to pray uncovered, (iv) (maybe) Paul telling the Corinthians that it is not a woman’s glory to have long hair, but her hair is a covering, and finally (v) Paul stating that if anyone desires to be contentious (presumable about the matter of head coverings), Paul and the Churches have no such custom.
All this, properly translated, leads me to believe that Paul is giving a woman options; that she can cover her head if it’s shameful for her to be uncovered, but she has the choice (the authority) to choose in the end, since there is no universal head covering custom in The Churches.

So I guess that about wraps it up on this one. Thanks for dialoguing with me.

Your Tags

Personal labels you apply to any item — separate from system topics. Tags are shared across all databases. Visit /tags to browse all your tags.

...more

Original Article

Shaming The Head 3

2007-07-21